Article Tools

Lately, I’ve been feeling like I’m in the middle of The Twilight Zone, and not in the good, campy way. For the other folks closely following the federal case about Proposition 8—aka Perry v. Schwarzenegger—I’m sure you understand what I’m talking about. It’s been a bizarre few weeks.

Gay Girl/Straight World

First, there was all that hoopla about allowing cameras into the courtroom to broadcast the trial, whether on television or over the Internet. Despite more than 140,000 signatures supporting transparent proceedings, the trial judge, Reagan appointee Vaughn Walker, said cameras would be banned from the courtroom. This isn’t particularly surprising; after all, the Supreme Court doesn’t allow video coverage of its arguments and cameras usually are banned from federal courtrooms. But what was knock-me-over-with-a-feather shocking came in the discussions before the decision, when a lawyer arguing against same-sex marriage claimed the trial shouldn’t be televised to prevent “harassment, economic reprisal, threat, and even physical violence” toward those preparing to testify in support of Prop. 8.

Yes, you read that correctly, and no, I’m not joking.

Those poor supporters of Proposition 8. It must be so difficult to have all of their rights still intact. And it must be even more difficult to know that their relationships will never be put to a popular vote. It must be hard to be part of a majority that can take away civil rights from taxpaying citizens.

I’ve grown accustomed to ridiculous accusations being flung from the right—if two consensual adults of the same sex can get married, who will stop polygamist pedophiles from marrying parakeets?—but claiming victimhood is a new low. Yes, the election was heated, and yes, its aftermath was, too, perhaps even more so. But publicly talking about Proposition 8 doesn’t make you a victim. It just makes you accountable for your vote.

Furthermore, it’s more than a little offensive that the people who systematically discriminate against gay people now are pulling the “fear of physical violence” card. Even if they’ve never personally participated in gay bashing, the reality is that homophobia is bred by the type of discrimination found in Prop. 8 and the campaign launched to pass it. I’d suggest talking to Matthew Shepard or Lawrence King about it, but they were both murdered. Because they were gay.

Shortly after it was announced that the trial would not be televised, Courage Campaign—a grassroots, online organizing group—set up Prop8TrialTracker.com, a minute-by-minute account of the case, and created a symbol to brand the site. Utilizing as a jumping-off point the insignia of a pro-Prop. 8 group, which displays a heterosexual couple and two children, Trial Tracker designed a parody symbol featuring two women and two children.

Logo-gate had Prop. 8ers up in arms: This is copyright infringement, a violation of the 1st Amendment, and just plain rude! Ultimately, a judge ruled that the parody logo should stand, and, for the “not intended results” category, it boosted Trial Tracker’s site traffic astronomically because of all the press the controversy generated.

Much like the to-televise or not-to-televise issue, the outcome here wasn’t what got my attention; it was what arose during the discussions. According to ProtectMarriage.com, the problem with the logo was that the image of the two women was “substantially indistinguishable” from their image of a man and a woman. Exactly.

We’ve been saying for years that there’s no difference between heterosexual and homosexual families, and that love is what makes relationships work. In an ironic twist, it looks like we can all agree on that. Who knew?

As we wait for the next phase of the trial to begin (closing arguments will likely happen at the end of February), I’ve taken odd comfort knowing that I’ve got allies in the form of two McCains: Cindy and Meghan have both posed for photographs for NoH8, a marriage equality campaign formed after Prop. 8 passed. Like I said, welcome to The Twilight Zone.

Comments

Penny you poor dear. Love has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. Marriage is all about property rights and laws and inheritance and the power of the church and the state and vast wastes of money on huge weddings. Love is grand, marriage is an institution and sometimes the two overlap and sometimes they don't. However, I wish you the best!

This statement: "Despite more than 140,000 signatures supporting transparent proceedings, the trial judge, Reagan appointee Vaughn Walker, said cameras would be banned from the courtroom." Makes it seem as though Walker singlehandedly did everything he could to break his promise. Actually, if you followed what happened, it was the Supreme Court itself who ruled that they would not allow Walker to broadcast the proceedings. I followed very closely and I felt that Walker was very sincere in his attempts.

Also, I think you unfairly characterize conservatives in general. Let's be clear, social conservatives support prop. 8. I know plenty of conservatives who think proposition 8 is a ridiculous mockery of constitutional rights.

In regards to the Pro Prop 8er's "sinking to a new low" could you please provide me a listing of individuals who had their homes and cars vandalized for showing "No on 8 signs"? Please also include a list of No on 8ers who lost their jobs or substantial revenue at their places of business for opposing Prop 8.

Any educated person after seeing what the losing side of the proposition did in their subsequent whineathon/witch-hunt would have every justification for feeling vulnerable to persecution, and not just the "emotional" kind your side has invoked ad nauseam since day 1.

We had churches vandalized by the No on 8 crowd right here in Santa Barbara, yet you were "shocked" that someone might suggest there would be reprisals against people testifying in favor of Proposition 8?

Under California law, people who gave money to support Proposition 8 ( and other measures) had their names, employers, and other personal information listed on the Web site of the Secretary of State of California. Once identified; these people have been targeted for intimidation and harassment by activist organizations from all over the country. This amounts to voter intimidation after the fact, and is counter to the democratic ideals this nation was founded on. It’s dangerously close to colluding to deprive individuals of their civil rights.

Your argument seems to be that this kind of reprehensible behavior is permissible if it makes the person more “accountable” for their vote. From what authority do you derive this right to make people who think differently from you, “accountable” for their voting record? And by “accountable” what exactly do you mean?

Also, legislation is supposed to be broad in its application and scope. Why are you limiting the fight to same sex marriage? Are you prejudiced or phobic against people who are different than you? Why are you not fighting for the rights of all people to eliminate all obstacles to marriage, if love is the only consideration? Will you fight to help me marry my Mommy so I can collect her social security when she’s gone? I love my Mommy; shouldn’t I have the right to marry anyone I love? The law calls this an “unnatural” relationship. Why does the government have any right to label any loving relationship, “unnatural?” Why is the word “love” never mentioned in any of the legal definitions of marriage, but "contract" is? For that matter why does the person that I wish to marry have to even be alive? Why can’t marriage be anything I say it is?

I like what Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had to say today on his Twitter feed regarding his view of homosexual orientation today:

"Stand by what I said: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly is the right thing to do. Comes down to integrity." -binky-

As I was saying to my dad a few minutes ago, are those in favor of homosexuals in the military (at least those who are the ones in the military and government making the decisions) doing this because they love gay people, or because (as the cynic in me suggests) they know this war will escalate and they figure they need as many people as they can get for fodder.

You expressed amazement that the pro8 crowd feared violence. One of the characteristics of a perpetrator is to blame the victim.

Well, Billy Joe, why did you rape Betty Sue?

It was all her fault.

Why is that, Billy Joe?

She wore a short dress.

The people in prison claim innocence because they see themselves as the victim, not as one responsible for his or her own acts. You hear the same thing from alcoholics. "I do not have a drinking problem. Everyone else has a problem leaving me alone."